Geduldig v. Aiello
United States Supreme Court
417 U.S. 484 (1974)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
The State of California administered a disability-insurance system that paid benefits to persons in private employment who were temporarily unable to work because of a disability not covered by workman’s compensation. The program received no state funding but was instead funded entirely by contributions of 1 percent of the wages of participating employees. Aiello (plaintiff) and other women suffered disabilities resulting from pregnancies. Aiello brought suit in federal district court against Geduldig, a director of the California Department of Human Resources Development, and the State of California (defendants) to challenge the constitutionality of the disability-insurance program. Aiello argued the program violated the Equal Protection Clause because, in defining disability, the program excluded from coverage certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy. The district court held that the insurance program was unconstitutional. Geduldig appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
